SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

INFORMATION SHEET • • - 13 - MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY replacing a use of potable water. Musco's wastewater does not meet either of these criteria. First, the discharge is industrial wastewater, with no domestic component. Section 13523 of the CWC states that water reclamation requirements are to be established in conformance with the uniform statewide recycling criteria established by the California Department of Health Services (DHS). These criteria are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Section 60302 of Title 22 states that"the requirements in this chapter shall only apply to recycled water from sources that contain domestic waste, in whole or part." Therefore, Title 22 does not apply to Musco's waste stream, and it is inappropriate to issue water reclamation requirements in lieu of waste discharge requirements. In regard to CWC Section 13523.5, the salinity standard does not apply to waste discharge requirements. A 7 February 1985 memorandum from the Office of Chief Counsel to the Executive Officer of the San Diego Regional Board concludes that CWC Section 13523.5 "does not create an exception to a Regional Board's responsibility to implement the applicable basin plan through waste discharge requirements." In addition, CWC Section 13527(b) provides that"Nothing in this chapter prevents the appropriate regional board from establishing waste discharge requirements if a discharge is involved." Therefore, waste discharge requirements are both appropriate and necessary for this discharge. SPECIFIC DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Discharge Prohibition A.2 The prohibition of discharge within 100 feet of a surface water drainage course is intended to prevent irrigation tailwater or overspray from entering the drainage course that runs through the land application area. The Discharger has asked that this prohibition be removed as it is constructing a tailwater return system adjacent to the surface water course. However, despite requests, the Discharger has not submitted the plans and specifications for the tailwater return system. If the Discharger submits the information, and the Executive Officer finds that the system is appropriate to protect the surface water drainage course, then the Executive Officer may allow discharge within 100 feet of the drainage. Discharge Prohibition A.3 This prohibition restricts discharge of percolate from the Land Treatment Unit(LTU) of waste classified as hazardous or designated. This restriction is necessary to protect groundwater quality. Discharge Prohibition A.7 This prohibition requires each land application area to be equipped with a tailwater/runoff control system to prevent discharge of wastewater to the natural surface water drainage. This prohibition is necessary to protect surface water quality. The Discharger historically has not been able to prevent wastewater from discharging off the facility property but has stated that the construction of the 84-million gallon storage pond will allow control of the discharge to only uncontaminated stormwater. The Discharger has provided a Draft Storniwater Pollution Prevention Plan to the Regional Board; but staff has determined the report is incomplete and requested additional information. The Discharger has proposed allowing diversion of stormwater around the 84-million gallon storage pond, however it has failed to present specific criteria to evaluate the acceptability of such a discharge. In addition, the Discharger has not presented an evaluation of the wastewater application areas and the potential for mixing stormwater with wastewater in runoff proposed for diversion. It is noted that the